north coast regional water quality control board ... coast regional water quality control board...

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board

Agricultural Lands Discharge Program

Advisory Group Meeting

June 26, 2012

1

Goals for Today

Item 3: Discuss changes to Draft Scope & Framework

Item 4: Review recommendations from subgroups

Item 6: Develop recommendations of the full Advisory Group

– Consensus seeking

– Document differing recommendations

– After meeting staff will incorporates revisions and develop

draft final recommendations (including all variations, if any)

Item 7: Discuss our next steps & schedule

Item 8: Receive recommendations on stakeholder process

2

Item 2

Introduction, Meeting Logistics,

and Agenda Review

3

Item 3

Overview of Changes to the

Draft Scope & Framework

4

Purpose of Presentation

• Present changes to Draft Scope and Framework

since the May subgroup meetings

• Respond to written and oral comments

5

Versions

6

04/26/2012 06/08/2012

Revisions to the Scope

• Many comments received on size criterion

• Justification:

– Size is a good surrogate for risk to water quality

– EO can require operations < 1 ac. to enroll in Program if needed

– Necessary to limit number of entities in the Program

– 1 acre threshold based on construction stormwater program

• Removed commercial/revenue criteria

7

Old Draft: New Draft:

Variable Acreage

Threshold

Land Disturbance ≥ 1 ac.


• Outstanding issue – looking for suggestions

• Working with law enforcement agencies on illegal

growing operations

8

Old Draft: New Draft:

All Medicinal Marijuana

Included

Farms with ≥ x plants

or ≥ x square feet


Associated Facilities

New Draft:

– See the Glossary (Appendix A)

– Includes buildings, staging areas, equipment storage areas, other

associated facilities

– Includes animal feeding areas if areas are associated with farming

activities that are in scope

– Includes roads. See definition of “appurtenant road”

Justification:– Associated facilities can be the source of discharges or potential

discharges to waters of the state

9

Note: Fees are not based on the acreage of associated facilities


Discharges of Waste to Waters of the State

• Program will regulate discharges of waste

associated with named land use activities within

scope

• Comment: Groundwater has not been included up

to this point.

– Waters of the state includes ground water and Program

will regulate discharges of waste to groundwater

– Groundwater is only a concern in some areas of the

region

10

Revisions to Scope

Cultivated Forage Crops and Irrigated Pasture

• Comments:

– Forage crops with no ground disturbance and permanent pasture

generally pose less risk to water quality compared to other land uses

• New Draft – Activities in Scope:

– Cultivated forage crops with ground disturbance over 1 acre

– All irrigated pasture

• Proposed Revision to Irrigated Pasture:

– Include irrigated pasture with tailwater discharge

– Irrigated pasture with no tailwater runoff covered through other

programs or as part of a future grazing program

• Encourages elimination of tailwater on irrigated pasture

11


Dryland Grazing

•Program will continue to exclude dryland grazing

•Goal: Minimize permit redundancy

•Program will be coordinated with existing or future program

– Scott and Shasta TMDL Waivers

– Permit(s) that may be adopted as part of statewide process to

address grazing

•Landowners conducting activities that fall within scope can

voluntarily cover their entire operation under one permit

12


• Nurseries– Inadvertently removed from being in Scope

– Staff to add back in and define

• No change to exclusion for 4H & FFA

• Added exclusion for academic research projects

13

Revisions to Framework

Comments:

• Desire for a way into Tier 1 besides meeting physical

criteria

• Good management should qualify operations for Tier 1

• Slope should not be included as Tier 1 criteria

• Where did 35 foot buffer on Class III streams come from?

• Why isn’t a clean discharge of tailwater, frost water, or

subsurface drainwater allowed in Tier 1?

• Concerns about monitoring costs

14


Tier 1

Staff proposing two paths to Tier 1 in response to comments

1. Low risk category for farms that meet certain verifiable criteria related to risk

– Includes slope - criteria will be developed through GIS analysis and group input

– Roads are less than x% hydrologically connected to a stream

– 35 foot buffer from Class III stream or other conveyance

– No discharge of polluted tailwater, subsurface drainage water or frost water to surface water

2. Stewardship category that recognizes good management

– Implementing a farm water quality plan or in compliance with an approved third party program

– Management practices are currently being implemented and are effective

15


Tier 1 Benefits

• Enrollment requirements may differ from Tier 2

– Verification process for Tier 1 will be discussed at future

subgroup meeting

• Will have less monitoring and reporting over time

compared to Tier 2

– Monitoring and reporting to be discussed at future

subgroup meeting


Tier 2 – Moderate Risk

• Operations do not meet Tier 1 criteria

– Do not meet physical characteristics

– Are not implementing an approved farm water quality plan

– Management practices are not being implemented and/or are not

effective

• Higher scrutiny compared to Tier 1

• Ability to move to Tier 1 through planning and

implementation of effective management practices that

meet permit conditions

17


Tier 3 – Individual Waste Discharge Requirements

• Report of Waste Discharge may be submitted by

owners/operators that choose not to enroll in Tier 1 or 2

• May be adopted by the Regional Water Board to address

high risks to water quality

• May be developed for farms regardless of size or type of

operation

18

Other Comments

Definitions

– Many now in the Glossary (Appendix A)

– “Agronomic rates” will be added

– “De minimis” to be removed and replaced with the

concept of low risk.

– “Hydrologic connectivity” will be revised

– “Waste” will be added

19

Open Discussion

Opportunity for discussion regarding changes to the

Draft Scope and Framework.

20

Item 4

Updates & Recommendations

from Sub-Regional Groups

21

Item 6

Program Scope & Framework:

Developing Advisory Group Recommendations

22

Scope of Program

• Discharges or potential discharges of waste to waters of the

state associated with land use activities within the scope

• Land use activities within scope

– Vineyards, orchards, row crops, field crops

– Medicinal marijuana farms

– Irrigated pasture with tailwater runoff

– Cultivated forage crops with ground disturbance

– Nurseries

– Associated facilities

• Out of Scope

– Less than 1 acre of ground disturbance

– Medicinal marijuana farm with less than x plants or less than x sq ft.

– 4H, FFA, and academic research projects

– Dryland grazing 23

Tier 1 – Low Risk

• Slopes less than 10% - to be refined based on GIS analysis

• Roads less than x% hydrologically connected to stream

• No land within riparian zone or 35 feet of Class I or II stream

• No land within 35 feet of a Class III stream or other

conveyance to a Class I or II

• No use of certain pesticides

• No tailwater, subsurface drainage water, or frost water

(polluted) discharge of waste to surface waters, direct or

indirect

• Fewer monitoring requirements and minimal/no fees

24

Tier 1 – Water Quality Stewardship

• Requires verification that an approved farm plan is in place

or third party program requirements are being met

• Management practices as described in the plan/third party

program are being implemented

• Management practices are effective at addressing risks to

water quality and meeting permit conditions

• Implementation and effectiveness can be verified through

reporting

• Fewer monitoring requirements and minimal/no fees

25

Tier 2 – Moderate Risk

• Operations do not have an approved water quality farm plan

or third party certification and/or

• Management practices are not being implemented and/or

are not effective

• Ability to move to Tier 1 through planning and

implementation of effective management practices that

meet permit conditions

• Increased monitoring and oversight

• Higher fees

26

Tier 3 – Individual WDRs

• Individual Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs)

– Application may be submitted by owner/operators that

choose not to participate in the Ag Lands Program

– May be adopted by the Regional Water Board to address

high risks to water quality

– May be developed for farms regardless of size or type of

operation

27

Item 7

Next Steps

28

Proposed Schedule

June 26, 2012Full Group

Scope and Tier Framework

July 26, 2012Full Group Webinar

Introduction of Monitoring Types

Aug/Sept 2012

Sub-Regional Groups

Enrollment, Documentation, Approval Process,

Standard Language Provisions

Oct/Nov 2012Sub-Regional Groups

Farm Plans, Monitoring, Reporting, 3rd Party Certifications

January 2013

Full Group

Recommendations on Topics

from Previous 2 Sub-Regional Group Meetings

May/June 2013Full Group

Draft Permit & CEQA Documents

Summer 2013 Public Workshops

29

Item 8

Process Evaluation

30